Skip to main content

Master is vicariously liable for acts of omission of servant

In Paradeep Port Trust v. Chunilata Mohanty and Ors., 21-year old educated son of complainant, lost his life by drowning at Boat Club, owned by Appellant, Paradeep Port Trust. Appellant has tried to shift the blame on their lessee, the TIDC, saying that the entire responsibility for running the Boat Club had been entrusted upon OP-2. Vide impugned order, State Commission, after taking into account averments of parties, allowed consumer complaint and directed OPs to pay a sum of 5 lakh as compensation to complainant for gross deficiency in service alongwith 5,000/- as litigation cost. It is against this order that present appeal has been made before this Commission.

Since, TIDC was only bidder, as stated by Appellant, they handed over operation of Boat Club alongwith Open Air Restaurant to them for a period of 6 years. It was evident that, while making such arrangements, Appellant should have ensured that, all terms and conditions, and more so, those mentioned in technical bid were strictly followed. Bidder was required to make arrangements for life-boys and life jackets as safety measures. However, facts and circumstances on record indicate that no life-jackets were provided to son of complainant or his friends, when they went for boating at the said Club. Appellant has not stated anywhere whether they had made any arrangements or taken any steps to ensure safety and security of the persons using the Club.

Indeed, Paradeep Port Trust is a vast organisation, responsible for carrying out various activities concerned with port management. Such an organisation is expected to exercise more vigilance and level of responsibility to ensure that such unfortunate incidents do not happen within premises managed by them and all possible precautionary steps are taken towards that objective. Appellant cannot get away from responsibility by simply saying that, management of the Boat Club had been handed over to the TIDC. The State Commission have rightly concluded that, Appellant is vicariously liable for the acts of omission of the TIDC and hence, liable to pay compensation to the complainant for the negligence and deficiency in service. State Commission rightly stated that in view of the contract between the Paradeep Port Trust and the TIDC, there was relationship of master and servant between them. There is no illegality in impugned order passed by the State Commission, vide which they directed the OP to pay compensation of 5 lakh to the complainant alongwith 5,000/- as litigation cost.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more